Dr Patrick Thomsen’s examination of sexual identity in the context of Saïd’s Orientalism led me to consider how while the East-West dynamic certainly penetrates sexual discourse*, we should also consider how perceptions of sexuality change over time. The covert (homo)sexuality described in E.M. Forster’s Maurice – a book written around a century ago in the West about the West – seems more culturally distant to our current Western impression of homosexuality than to the Korean society described by Dr Thomsen.
The term “homosexual”, which we might today consider rather formal if not outdated, did not exist until its creation in the late 19th century. It might come as a surprise that the blowjob, which our society makes us believe is a completely standard sexual act, was likely introduced to gay men in Auckland by the arrival of American troops in the city as late as the 1930s[1]. Sex is, and has been since the Ancient Greeks were at it four thousand years ago, not about pure physical desire but rather about how our societies understand power – just as Western interpretations rule over the academia that we absorb and use to reinforce our genealogies of knowledge, so do the assumptions that come with our modern habits of internet porn and celebrity nudes. These technology-driven sexual tools proliferate the Brandt Line – across the globe, we are increasingly connected in our disconnection from what sex meant to our grandparents**. As globalisation continues to dissolve the East-West divide, and as somebody who identifies with elements of both Eastern and Western cultures, I am interested to see how we might also look to the past to understand why we behave in the ways we do today***.
*Admittedly a poor choice of language given the theme.
**Sorry for bringing them up in this context, but hopefully my point still stands.
***And not necessarily just in bed.
[1] https://publicaddress.net/speaker/queen-city/
Hugh Grant in the 1987 adaptation of Maurice
